nehrimfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Creatures - any ideas?
Hey! The page about creatures needs a bit of organization. My suggestions are: 1. Do we really need 'Quest-related'? Won' t it be a bit confusing? We have ques-trelated bosses... I guess their place should be in Bosses simply. And in the description we can write the quest they appear in. 2. How about Golems? I checked wiki and it says Golems are 'antropomorphic beings' so.... should they have a separate category or should we put them in human's category? So far I've encountered only Dwarf Golems and Arcane Golems, odn't know if there are oher kinds of them. 3. Spriggans- they are similar to Deadera Spiders inOblivion, so maybe we should move them to Daedra? Tell me your suggestions please, I can take care of a bit of 'reorganization' at the weekend. Kassandra1 10:18, December 9, 2010 (UTC) I would go with a seperate "Boss" page/section, link boss name to quest page. If have time, will check in construction set to see how spriggan/golem are labelled/described. Just been in and checked. This may help - or confuse. In the editor there are only 4 sections under "creature", Creature,Undead,Daedra,Humanoid. There are only 3 "humanoid" (unless i missed some), Cave Troll, Kobold, Nasty Kobold. Creature category actually includes goblins,flesh golems, ghost ogre even Countess Sapho. Spiggans come under creature. Guard Arcane Golems come under daedra. Should we use how they are categorised in the editor? .TheHawkNe 15:07, December 9, 2010 (UTC) blink here - I wouldn't use how they are catagorized in the editor, no. It is a muddle due to the switch over from Oblivion. I think the way they are catagorized now is ok but perhaps, in terms of clean-up, they could be put in alphabetical order within each of their headings. Again, it is my opinion that these NPC and creature pages are merely a reference. That most people will visit them by clicking through a link found on a walkthrough page. There will be times when readers are simply here to explore and will go directly to the creatures page to read about, for instance, "Desert Creatures" (form of Goblin) or the Fire Elementals but most of the time I would think that people will find, for instance, "The Master Smith" by reading the Cry from the Deep walkthrough and clicking his link. In other words, concerning Boss characters, if it was me and I had just done the quest The Cry from the Deep but wanted to read a bit about Foreman Muc, I probably wouldn't go through the creatures page. I would probably go to the Cry from the Deep quest page and click through to his page from there. I am not totally sure I am following you Hawk about "quest related" but I think you mean that the "quest related" category, within each individual creature page, should only be used for Boss creatures. I agree with this. Or it should only be used for a creature who plays a major role in the completion of the quest. "Helmut" for instance (the Boss Cave Troll up north) is, to this point anyway, in no way related to a quest I don't think. So even though he is a named Boss creature there would be no point in having the heading "quest related" listed within his page. It might just confuse people. Further, I think it is ok to simply leave out certain categories if they do not really apply. Like "drops" for instance. Some creatures do not "drop" anything in that sense. They may have inventory items to loot but it isn't like spiders and "fine spider silk" if you get what I am saying. My suggestion would be to develop a list of categories we CAN use and then use them logicaly at our descretion, where and when they are needed. I hope that makes sense --blink Hi. Just took a quick look at creatures table again. Below quickie idea. Move Humans(mages,bandits to peoples page maybe under heading "groups"). Bosses/quest seperate. TheHawkNe 19:57, December 9, 2010 (UTC)